When you believe the Earth is flat. Then it's just free range and totally acceptable. The suffering that they would feel is definitely dulled because of their undeveloped brains, so technically it's okay because they are less human than norma people.
No, it is never a legitimate argument. Going ad hominem against someone means you are completely ignoring their position and attacking their character. If other people are on your side, you haven't won the argumwnt, youve just bullied them.
>>734174574 If you're having an actual argument in front of real people then no. It's just a complication of telling them to shut up, which is the weakest possible level of discourse and can only undermine your own position. You're showing weakness, insecurity and immaturity.
>>734174574 >Is there any circumstance in which Ad Hominem is a legitimate argument? yes, but only if you understand the logic of argumentation. once you understand the rationale of an argument can you effectively wield any tool in the argumentation arsenal
That's true, but not relevant to OPs question. If the "debate falls down" there's no longer any structure for either sides' argument to have legitimacy in. Just waiting for someone to throw the first punch
People miss what an ad hom actually means: you're using your knowledge of this persons OTHER positions to inform how much you should believe THIS position. For example, if the person is wrong on issues A, B, and C, you know there is a higher probability that they are also wrong on D.
There's a bit of ugly tribalism in there too, but tribalism is useful at times.
Arguments only exist in a vacuum online and in debate club.
No. Not really. Maybe in response to an appeal to personal authority -- but that is itself a fallacious argument and should be refuted on that ground, rather than taken seriously enough to make the person the point of argument.
>>734178001 That's a form of it yes. If I were to say "you're wrong in your characterization of this fallacy, because youre the kind of person that goes on 4chan and are thus retarded" would also be Ad Hominem, without having to mention any point youd made at all. Using that argument on 4chan though would be a new can of worms though. Am I right, but a hypocrite?
That is NOT what ad hominem means. Ad hominem is NOT an attack on improper authority or weak authority. It is an improper diversion of argument from the topic into personal attack.
If a person is not a good authority, then their conclusions can be disregarded without additional grounds or proof. However, that disregard is a defense in an argument, not an offense -- and ad hominem is always an (improper) offense.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.